5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the town of Nerchinsk, the Chita Region.
6.  In June 2002 the applicant was convicted of theft and involving a minor in the commission of a crime.
7.  On 1 and 2 October 2002 a series of night robberies took place on the Khabarovsk-Chita motorway in the vicinity of the town of Mogocha, the Chita Region. According to the reports of the victims, the perpetrators were five individuals travelling in two cars.
8.  At around 5.30 p.m. on 3 October 2002 the police stopped two cars corresponding to the descriptions given by the victims on the outskirts of Chita. The police arrested the applicant and three individuals who had been travelling in the cars, V., Ta. and To., on suspicion of their involvement in the recent robberies.
9.  The applicant’s arrest record notes the suspicion of his involvement in one of the recent robberies and the fact that a victim had already identified him as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. The record bears the applicant’s handwritten comment:
“I disagree with [my] arrest. I did not commit the crime ...”
10.  The arrest record of that date contains the following pre-typed standard wording followed by the applicant’s signature:
“I have been informed that in accordance with Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I have the following rights:
(1) to know what I am suspected of, and to receive a copy of [the relevant decision];
(2) to make comments and statements in respect of that suspicion or to refuse to make any comments and statements;
(3) to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer from the moment defined by subparts 2 and 3 of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to see him privately and confidentially before my first interview ...
I have also been informed that in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution I have the right not to give evidence against myself ...”
11.  The applicant acknowledged having received a copy of the record with his signature.
12.  After the arrest, the applicant was taken to the building of the Department for Combating Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chita Region (“the UBOP”).
13.  The applicant submitted that he had been punched and kicked all over his body and that a plastic bag had been put over his head to suffocate him.
14.  It appears that the policemen started to interview him on arrival, but that the applicant remained silent. According to the interview record, he “was not mentally ready and also because of being tired” to take part in the interview. The applicant asked for a lawyer and refused to give evidence.
15.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was brought to the temporary detention wing of the Department of the Interior of Chita (“the temporary detention wing”, изолятор временного содержания УВД г. Читы). Upon arrival, he was examined by a nurse, who detected no injuries on his body.
16.  On 5 October 2002 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ‑75/1 in Chita.
17.  On 7 October 2002 the remand prison’s doctor examined the applicant and reported one bruise on the right side of the applicant’s rib cage. The bruise could have originated from the impact of a hard blunt object two or three days prior to the examination.
18.  It appears that on 3 October 2002 an interview with the applicant did not take place, as the applicant chose to remain silent.
19.  On the next day a police investigator conducted face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and his alleged victims, M. and Ya., who both identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. In the course of the face-to-face confrontations, the applicant and the victims answered the investigator’s questions. The applicant took part in the confrontations, denied his involvement in the alleged robberies, but did not put any questions to the victims.
20.  Both confrontation records state that the applicant:
“... agreed to participate in the face-to-face confrontation in the absence of counsel ... [and that he] ... has been informed that under Article 51 of the Constitution [that he] has a right not to give evidence against himself ...”
21.  On 5 October 2002 the applicant was formally charged with the aggravated robbery of M. and Ya., committed as a member of an organised group consisting of him and three other individuals, V., Ta. and To., who had travelled with him in two cars on the night of 2 October 2002.
22.  During a subsequent interview which took place on that date in the presence of his counsel, the applicant made a handwritten comment on the interview record that:
“... [he] refused to give evidence ... and had nothing else to explain ...”
23.  It appears from the materials of the case file that the applicant was represented by counsel from 5 October 2002 onwards.
24.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant was additionally charged in respect of other episodes of the aggravated robbery of Sh., Zh., Z. and Mr and Mrs G. committed by the same group on the night of 1 October 2002.
25.  During a subsequent interview which took place later on the same date in the presence of his counsel, the applicant made a handwritten comment on the interview record to the effect that:
“... he denied the charges ... .”
26.  During the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, the victims Zh. and Sh., Z., Ya., M., and Mr and Mrs G., made detailed statements about the circumstances of the robberies. In addition, photo identification parades were conducted and the victims Zh., Ya. and Mr and Mrs G. recognised the applicant and other members of the group as the perpetrators of the robberies.
27.  The criminal case against the applicant and his three co-accused, V., Ta. and To., was sent for examination on the merits to the Mogochinskiy District Court of the Chita Region (“the District Court”).
28.  During the subsequent trial, the District Court called Zh. and Sh., Mr and Mrs G., M. and Ya. to the hearing as witnesses and issued three decisions dated 22 December 2003, 4 March and 27 April 2004, in which it gave instructions to the police to locate their whereabouts and secure their attendance by force.
29.  In response to the court’s request, the competent police authorities carried out a search, but were unable to locate Mr and Mrs G. because they had moved away and had failed to leave any information about their whereabouts.
30.  As regards witnesses M. and Ya., they established that both resided in the town of Krasnoyarsk, which is over three thousand kilometres away from the location of the trial. In addition, Ya. had a sick child and could not come to give evidence, whilst M., fearing for his life, categorically refused to appear in court and asked the court to examine the case on the basis of his prior statements.
31.  Witness Sh. could not appear because of his state of health and the distance of over one thousand kilometres between his home town of Irkutsk and the location of the trial. In addition, witness Sh. wrote a letter to the court and complained that unknown individuals had been calling him on the phone and making threats in connection with the proceedings. Witness Zh., residing in Irkutsk, also refused to appear, fearing for his life, and asked the court to examine the case on the basis of his previous statements made during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings.
32.  Having analysed the information collected by the police, the District Court excused the absence of the above-mentioned witnesses, ruling that their failure to appear was for “a good reason”, and granted the prosecution’s motion to read out their pre-trial statements in spite of the objections of the applicant and his co-accused.
33.  On 14 July 2004 the District Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and, having analysed its admissibility, approved the use of the evidence, including the record of the applicant’s face-to-face confrontations of 4 October 2002, contained in the prosecution case file.
34.  During the trial the applicant denied his involvement in the robberies.
(b)  The first-instance judgment of 17 August 2004
35.  On 17 August 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant and his co-accused of participation in three episodes of robbery committed on the Khabarovsk-Chita motorway near the town of Mogocha and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment. The court noted that:
“The accused created an organised group which corresponded to the description given in Article 35 of the Criminal Code, [namely,] permanent links between its members, prior collusion, stability and the use of specific methods in the commission of the crimes. The group was created to [intercept newly-purchased Japanese cars being driven home] on the Khabarovsk-Chita motorway by people passing near the town of Mogocha [and to levy an unofficial “toll” on the drivers]. The attacks were directed solely at drivers who had ... a transit identification number from the town of Vladivostok [and presumably had just bought a “new” second-hand Japanese car and were driving it back home]. To carry out their attacks, the group had its own cars, acted only during the night, in a coordinated manner and daringly, made threats and substantiated them by showing [weapons], such as a shotgun, grenades, pistols ..., gave special notes confirming the payment, which also confirms that there were preliminary preparations and coordination. All of the accused were participants. No group leader was identified. The stability and organised nature of the group are also confirmed by the fact that they acted [on two consecutive nights]. That their actions were coordinated is also confirmed by the [wire-tapping records of their cell phone conversations] ...”
36.  The court established that the group had carried out its robberies on three occasions. As regards the first episode, the court noted that on the night of 1 October 2002 the applicant and his co-accused stopped two cars belonging to and driven by Zh. and Sh., having shown them a gun. They then forced them to pay for “safe passage” through the territory of the Chita Region and compelled them to hand over a spare car tyre. The involvement of the group had been confirmed by the discovery of a small handwritten note given by the group to the victims Zh. and Sh. as a confirmation of payment and as “security” in case of any further extortion during their onward journey, which read:
“Mazda Bongo Pulsar [the make and models of the victims’ cars] in Mogochi were met by us [signature].”
37.  An expert examiner had recognised that the note had been written by To., one of the co-accused. The court also relied on the statements given by Zh. and Sh. during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, the results of a photo identification parade during which Zh. had recognised the applicant, and the arrest and search record, which confirmed that the group had been in possession of firearms, that the applicant had travelled in one of the cars referred to by the victims, and the finding of the tyre taken away from Zh. and Sh. in possession of the group.
38.  As regards the second episode, the court noted that very shortly after the first episode, the group flagged down the car of Mr and Mrs G. and forced them to stop and pay. The co-accused collectively intimidated the victims, showing them a grenade and a gun, and also later gave them a handwritten note confirming the payment. The note contained the make and the identification number of the victims’ car and had been recognised by an expert as having been written by To. Apart from the note and the search record confirming the finding of a mock grenade in possession of the applicant’s group, the court also relied on the statements made by Mr and Mrs G. during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, the identification records according to which Mr and Mrs G. had identified the co-accused, including the applicant, and the grenade.
39.  As regards the third episode, the court pointed out that on the following night the group stopped the car of Ya. and M., who were also robbed in a similar way. The group took away a tyre mounted on a rim as well as a one-hundred-dollar bill, which was later found and identified by the investigating authorities and M., because the group subsequently used it for payment on the way to Chita. The court referred to the search record, which confirmed the finding of the mounted tyre and its subsequent identification by M.
40.  In so far as the group was also charged with the robbery of Z., an individual who had allegedly been robbed on one of the nights in question in the same area and in a similar manner, the court noted that the prosecution case was unsubstantiated, as it contained no evidence implicating the group apart from the pre-trial statement of Z. Accordingly, the court acquitted the group of that charge.
41.  In addition to the above-mentioned evidence, the court also relied on the records of the applicant’s telephone conversations with his co-accused in the first few days following their arrest.
42.  The court rejected the applicant’s arguments concerning the alleged use of torture, the denial of access to counsel and the absence of the victims of the robberies from the trial. The applicant appealed and raised those arguments on appeal.
43.  On 25 April 2005 the Chita Regional Court upheld the judgment. It stated that the first-instance court had fulfilled its duty to call the victims to the hearing, but that they had failed to appear for legitimate reasons. The appeal court also found that the first-instance court’s decision rejecting the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment by the police as unsubstantiated had correctly been based on the materials of the case file, medical documents and the investigator’s decisions to discontinue the criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 44 - 61 below). The court also examined and rejected the rest of the applicant’s arguments about the use of the victims’ pre-trial statements and the alleged denial of access to his lawyer at the initial stages of the investigation.
44.  On unspecified dates the applicant and three other of his co-accused lodged requests with the investigator to institute criminal proceedings against the UBOP officers who had allegedly beaten them up.
45.  On 14 October 2002 a medical expert examination of the applicant was conducted. The expert stated in his report (no. 3454) that he had not discovered any injuries on the applicant.
46.  By decisions of 24 October 2002 and 9 June and 3 August 2003 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings. By a decision of 22 September 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed the investigator’s refusals and ordered additional investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment.
47.  On 27 September 2003 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The investigator had questioned the policemen and convoy officers who had allegedly been involved, who had all denied the presence of any injuries on the applicant at the relevant time. At the same time, the decision mentioned that the applicant had displayed bruising on 7 October 2002, but concluded that these injuries may have been inflicted after the applicant’s placement in the remand prison.
48.  On 6 November 2003 the prosecutor quashed the decision of 27 September 2003 and instituted criminal proceedings against unidentified police officers under Article 286 of the Criminal Code.
49.  On 6 January 2004 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings due to the lack of evidence of a crime. He relied on the statements of the police officers denying the use of any force on the applicant, and information received from the temporary detention facility showing an absence of any complaints on the applicant’s part of any injuries during his detention there, and concluded that the injury had occurred on the second day of the applicant’s placement in the remand prison and therefore that the allegations of ill-treatment had not been supported by any evidence.
50.  On 19 February 2004 the deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 6 January 2004 and ordered additional investigation. He indicated in the decision that it was necessary to identify and question all the individuals who had been detained with the applicant in the temporary detention facility and in the remand prison.
51.  The criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued by the investigator’s decisions of 25 April, 27 May, 28 July, 22 September and 22 October 2004 and reopened by the prosecutor’s decisions of 27 April, 28 June, 23 August and 22 September 2004 and 18 April 2005.
52.  In the decisions of 27 April, 28 June and 23 August 2004 and 18 April 2005 the prosecutor referred to the need to find and question all former cellmates of the applicant from the temporary detention facility and the remand prison. In the decision of 22 September 2004 the prosecutor also considered it important to eliminate the contradictions between the statements of the applicant about beatings by the police and the statements of the temporary detention facility’s officers about the absence of any visible injuries on the applicant upon his arrival there.
53.  On 19 May 2005 the investigator suspended the criminal proceedings, as nobody who could be held responsible for the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant had been identified. The criminal proceedings were subsequently reopened by the prosecutor’s decisions of 10 August, 2 November and 12 December 2005 and 7 November 2006 and suspended by the investigator’s decisions of 14 September and 9 December 2005 and 12 January 2006.
54.  The decision of 10 August 2005 once again indicated the need to identify all those who had been detained together with the applicant in the temporary detention facility.
55.  The decisions of 2 November and 12 December 2005 and 7 November 2006 referred to the necessity to establish the remand prison cells in which the applicant had been detained at the relevant time.
56.  The decisions of 2 November 2005 and 7 November 2006 also indicated the need to resolve the contradictions between the statements of the applicant about the alleged beatings and the statements of the temporary detention facility’s officers about the absence of injuries on the applicant. The decision of 2 November 2005 also noted the need to question the witnesses attesting to the applicant’s identification by the victims in the first few days following his arrest.
57.  On 26 May 2010 an expert studied the results of the applicant’s medical examination of 14 October 2002 and concluded (in report no. 752) that the applicant had not had any injuries at the time of the examination.
58.  On 7 June 2010 the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. He noted that the applicant’s allegations of beatings by the police had been disproved by the results of the expert medical examination of the applicant, during which no injuries on him had been recorded.
59.  With regard to the injuries sustained by the applicant’s co-accused, the investigator concluded that they could have been inflicted by the victims of the crimes or by other people, including the co-accused themselves, during their detention in the remand prison. Given that the actions of unidentified individuals fell under Article 116 of the Criminal Code, the criminal proceedings were to be terminated, as the time-limit for holding those persons responsible in the present case had expired.
60.  The investigator relied on: (i) the statements of the doctor who had examined the applicant on 7 October 2002 and discovered a bruise on the right side of the applicant’s rib cage; (ii) the findings of the expert in report no. 752 on the examination of the applicant’s medical records of 14 October 2002, which did not note any injuries on the applicant; (iii) the statements of the police officers who had denied any application of force to the applicant; (iv) the statements of three of the applicant’s former cellmates from the remand prison and one from the temporary detention facility, who had asserted that there had been no fights in the cells; and (v) the statements of the nurse of the temporary detention facility who had examined the applicant on 4 October 2002 and had discovered no injuries.
61.  The applicant has apparently never challenged any decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings in the domestic courts.